I go 



DATES OF PUBLICATION. 



F. A. BATHER, D.Sc, F.G.S. 



With sad surprise I have read a letter in your issue of 

 April, signed by Dr. A. R. Dwerryhouse, Editor of the * Pro- 

 ceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society.' 



Two years ago I had a lengthy correspondence on this very 

 subject with the Rev. W. Lower Carter, who preceded Dr. 

 Dwerryhouse in the editorship, and I deeply regret to find that 

 the arguments and authorities which I brought to bear on the 

 then Editor of the ' Proceedings ' have had no effect on his 

 successor. I had previously thought of communicating 

 privately with Dr. Dwerryhouse, but now that the question 

 has been publicly raised in your pages, perhaps you will kindly 

 permit me a few observations, to which I beg the serious atten- 

 tion of Dr. Dwerryhouse and any other editors who may possibly 

 share his opinions. 



The difference between yourselves and Dr. Dwerryhouse 

 seems to depend on different interpretations of the word ' date.' 

 It is by no means clear to the uninitiated reader what is intended 

 by the date 1907 appearing on the outer wrapper of the last 

 number of the ' Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society.* 

 Such a date may be intended for one of three things : first, the 

 actual date of publication ; second, a date equivalent to or 

 replacing the usual volume number — a conception for which 

 we have no definite word in England, but which is well 

 rendered by the German ' Jahrgana: ' ', third, a date in- 

 dicating that the contents of the volume deal with a period 

 covered by the date. Now you in your criticism apparently 

 take the date appearing on the wrapper of the part in question 

 to be the first of these, in other words, the date of publication ; 

 and quite correctly you point out that it is not the date of 

 publication, since, as Dr. Dwerryhouse admits, the part was 

 not issued before the second week of January 1908. Dr 

 Dwerryhouse, on the other hand, interprets the date 1907 in 

 the third sense ; and, ^.s he is the editor who placed the date 

 there, we must accept his interpretation. 



It does not follow from the preceding remarks that Dr. 

 Dwerryhouse is altogether in the right, for the part in question 

 contains nearly as much matter referring to 1906 as it does of 

 matter referring to 1907. Clearly, then, Dr. Dwerryhouse 

 should have put on the outside wrapper ' 1906 and 1907.' So 



Naturalist, 



